1 / 26

Biodiversity/HNV indicators and the CAP

Biodiversity/HNV indicators and the CAP. Zélie Peppiette Rural Development Evaluation Manager DG AGRI, European Commission UK seminar on HNV farming policy, London,18 th June 2012. CMEF: what does it ask?. HNV common impact indicators new for 2007-2013 period

daphne
Download Presentation

Biodiversity/HNV indicators and the CAP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Biodiversity/HNV indicators and the CAP Zélie Peppiette Rural Development Evaluation Manager DG AGRI, European Commission UK seminar on HNV farming policy, London,18th June 2012

  2. CMEF: what does it ask? HNV common impact indicators new for 2007-2013 period • Baseline indicator = HNV farmland and forestry • Common impact indicator = Maintenance of HNV farmland and forestry (recorded as changes in HNV farmland and forestry)

  3. CMEF: what does it ask? FBI common impact indicators new for 2007-2013 period • Baseline indicator = Population of farmland birds • Common impact indicator 5 = Reversing decline in FBI

  4. CMEF: what does it ask? Biodiversity result indicator new for 2007-2013 period • Area and % UAA under a management contract designed to support biodiversity

  5. Approaches to Baseline HNV assessment1. Extent Photo: Liri Selge

  6. Summary of approaches: method • IRENA/EAA 3 • Land cover 13 • Designation 12 • Species data/habitat 10 • Sampling 1 • Systems 7 • IACS 5 • Management schemes 4

  7. Summary of approaches: outcome • Type 1 only 4 • Type 2 only 1 • Type 3 only 1 • Types 1 & 2 5 • Types 1 & 3 6 • Types 1,2 & 3 7

  8. Approaches to Baseline HNV assessment2. Quality

  9. Summary of approaches: Quality • Very few MS currently assess quality • Some databases exist, but not updated regularly • Sampling approach can provide quality assessment

  10. Summary of MTE findings Photo Arne Ader

  11. MTE findings: Biodiversity Info in MTE reports mostlybased on: • Output/resultindicators • Area in specificschemes • Expert/stakeholder opinions • Qualitative judgements • Not interpretations of the impact indicators

  12. MTE findings: FBI • Majority of MTEs did not cover FBI • 20 MTEs calculate trend (not net) • Some found –ve trend, but not due to RDP • Not always appropriate • Lack of data/evidence/causal links

  13. MTE findings: HNV • Least well addressed impact indicator • 24 quantify • 21 on basis of management schemes • Not linked to trend in baseline indicator • Only 5% « advanced » assessment • « Too soon » or Data/methodology issues • Development work still ongoing

  14. Where do we go now?

  15. Where do we go now? • Extension of common M&E concept to Pillar 1 • Impact indicators cover both pillars • Common indicators to be included in implementing acts • compulsory

  16. Proposals for CAP post-2013 M&E:Process so far  Stakeholder meeting Sept 2011  Legal proposals published Oct 2011  1st presentation of indicator proposals March 2012  Revised indicator proposals June 2012

  17. Current indicator proposals 1. impact (+context)

  18. They serve both pillars of the CAP • To the maxium extent possible: use of already established data sources such as FADN, FSS, HICP, Economic Accounts for Agriculture… • Aggregation at MS level, Member States can use more detailled regionalised data • Yearly availability of info (for some indicators less often) • Exact definitions and data locations will be published in the indicator fiches

  19. Net GHG emissions from agriculture • Farmland bird population index • HNV indicator • Share of agriculture in water use • Irrigated area • Water quality • Soil quality index • Soil erosion indicator

  20. Proposed biodiversity impact indicators • Farmland Birds Index • AEI 25 • Population trend of selected species • Pan-European Bird Monitoring Scheme (22 MS) • Data assessed by EEA • Annual • MS level

  21. Proposed biodiversity impact indicators • High Nature Value Farmland (Farming) • AEI 23 • % UAA with HNV status • Common concept/definition • Multiple methods/data • Base option: Updated EEA estimate or UAA in N2K • Baseline, during cycle, ex-post • RDP level

  22. Current indicator proposals2. Target/result

  23. Proposed biodiversity target/result indicator Priority 4: restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems dependent on agriculture and forestry Focus area 4A: Restoring and preserving biodiversity including N2K, HNV and landscapes • Forest or other wooded area under management contracts supporting biodiversity • UAA under management contracts supporting biodiversity and/or landscapes • One main focus area per operation – quantified target • Other relevant FA identified

  24. Open questions Photo: Riho Marja

  25. Open questions • Maintain FBI as separate or incorporate as element of HNV? • HNV Farmland or Farming? • 2 target indicators or 3 for FA 4A? • Proposal is that default result for LFA is landscape • Should biodiversity and landscape be separated?

  26. Thank you!

More Related